You are on page 1of 4

G.R. No.

130716 May 19, 1999

GUNIGUNDO, (in his capacity as chairman of the PCGG), respondents, GLORIA A. JOPSON,
CELNAN A. JOPSON, SCARLET A. JOPSON, and TERESA A. JOPSON, petitioners-inintervention.

Before the Court are (1) a "Motion for Leave to Intervene with Motion for Leave to File the
Attached Partial Motion for Reconsideration . . ." and (2) "Partial Motion for Reconsideration,"
both filed on January 22, 1999, as well as movants' Memorandum of Authorities filed on
March 16, 1999.
Movants Ma. Imelda Marcos-Manotoc, Ferdinand R. Marcos II and Irene Marcos-Araneta allege that
they are parties and signatories 1 to the General and Supplemental Agreements dated December 28, 1993,
which this Court, in its Decision promulgated on December 9, 1998, declared "NULL AND VOID for being
contrary to law and the Constitution." As such, they claim to "have a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in
the success of either of the parties or an interest against both as to warrant their intervention." They add that
their exclusion from the instant case resulted in a denial of their constitutional rights to due process and to equal
protection of the laws. They also raise the "principle of hierarchical administration of justice" to impugn the
Court's cognizance of petitioner's direct action before it.

The motions are not meritorious.

Intervention Not Allowed
After Final Judgment
First, we cannot allow the Motion for Leave to Intervene at this late stage of the proceedings. Section
2, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, provides that a motion to intervene should be filed "before rendition
of judgment . . ." Our Decision was promulgated December 9, 1998, while movants came to us only on
January 22, 1999. Intervention can no longer be allowed in a case already terminated by the final
judgment. 2
Second, they do not even offer any valid plausible excuse for such late quest to assert their alleged
rights. Indeed, they may have no cogent reason at all. As Petitioner Chavez asserts, 3 the original petition,
which was filed on October 3, 1997, was well-publicized. So were its proceedings, particularly the oral
arguments heard on March 16, 1998. Movants have long been back in the mainstream of Philippine political and
social life. Indeed, they could not (and in fact did not) even feign unawareness of the petition prior to its

Third, the assailed Decision has become final and executory; the original parties have not filed any

motion for reconsideration, and the period for doing so has long lapsed. Indeed, the movants are now
legally barred from seeking leave to participate in this proceeding. Nevertheless, we shall tackle their
substantive arguments, most of which have been taken up in said Decision, so as to finally dispose any
allegation, even in the remote future, of lack of due process or violation of the right to equal protection.
No Denial of Due Process
Movants claim that their exclusion from the proceeding regarding the Agreements to which they were
parties and signatories was a denial of "their property right to contract without due process of law."
We rule that the movants are merely incidental, not indispensable, parties to the instant case. Being
contractors to the General and Supplemental Agreements involving their supposed properties, they
claim that their interests are affected by the petition. However, as exhaustively discussed in the assailed
Decision, the Agreements undeniably contain terms an condition that are clearly contrary to the
Constitution and the laws and are not subject to compromise. Such terms and conditions cannot be
granted by the PCGG to anyone, not just to movants. Being so, no argument of the contractors will
make such illegal and unconstitutional stipulations pass the test of validity. 4 The void agreement will not
be rendered operative by the parties' alleges performance (partial or full) of their respective prestations. A
contract that violates the Constitution and the law is null and void ab intio and vests no rights and creates no
obligations. It produces no legal effect at all. 5 In legal terms, the movants have really no interest to protect or
right to assert in this proceeding. Contrary to their allegations, no infraction upon their rights has been

The original petition of Francisco I. Chavez sought to enforce a constitutional right against the
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and to determine whether the latter has been
acting within the bounds of its authority. In the process of adjudication, there is no need to call on each
and every party whom said agency has contracted with.
In any event, we are now ruling on the merits of the arguments raised by movants; hence, they can no
longer complain of not having been heard in this proceeding.
Petition Treated as an Exception to
the Principle of Hierarchical
Administration of Justice
Movants allege that despite petitioner's own statement that he did not intended "to stop or delay . . . the
proceedings involving the subject agreements as an incident before the Sandiganbayan," this Court
ruled the validity of the said Agreements. They submit that it thereby preempted the Sandiganbayan
and rendered moot the three-year proceedings so far undertaken by the latter court regarding the same.
Movants pray that the proceedings before the anti-graft court be allowed to take their due course,
consistent with the principle of the hierarchical administration of justice.
This matter has been discussed and ruled upon in the assailed Decision. Movants have not raised any
new argument that has not been taken up. In any event, we wish to point out that the principle of the
hierarchy of the courts generally applies to cases involving factual question. The oft-repeated

justification for invoking it is that such cases do not only impose upon the precious time of the Court
but, more important, inevitably result in their delayed adjudication. Often, such cases have to be
remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper forum or as better equipped t resolve to the issues,
since the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. 6 Inasmuch as the petition at bar involves only constitutional
and legal questions concerning public interest, the Court resolved to exercise primary jurisdiction on the matter.

Moreover, in taking jurisdiction over the Chavez petition, the Court actually avoided unnecessary
delays and expenses in the resolution of the ill-gotten wealth cases, which have been pending for about
twelve years now. With this Decision, the Sandiganbayan may now more speedily resolves the merits
of Civil Case No. 141. Finally, it is an elementary rule that this Court may at its sound discretion
suspend procedural rules in the interest of substantial justice. 7
Petition Sought to Define
Scope of Right to Information
Movants insist that there was "nothing "secret" or "furtive" about the agreements as to warrant
their compulsory disclosure by the Honorable Court . . .." They submit that when they filed
their Motion for Approval of Compromise Agreements before the Sandiganbayan, they
practically "opened to public scrutiny the agreements and everything else related thereto."
In our Decision, we have already discussed this point and, hence, shall no longer belabor it. Suffice it to
say that in our Decision, we ruled that the Chavez petition was not confined to the conclude terms
contained in the Agreements, but likewise concerned other ongoing and future negotiations and
agreement, perfected or not. It sought a precise interpretation of the scope of the twin constitutional
provisions on "public transactions." It was therefore not endered moot and academic simply by the
public disclosure of the subject Agreements.
Alleged Partial Implementation
of Agreements Immaterial
The movants also claim that PCGG's grant to their mother of access rights to one of their sequestered
properties may be equivalent to an implied ratification of the Agreements. As we have ruled, the subject
Agreements are null and void for being contrary to the Constitution and the laws. Being null and void,
they are not subject to ratification. 8 Neither will they acquire validity through the passage of time. 9
Petition Presented Actual
Case and Judicial Question
We reiterate that mandamus, over which this Court has original jurisdiction, is proper recourse
for a citizen to enforce a public right and to compel the performance of a public duty, most
especially when mandated by the Constitution. As aptly pointed out by Mr. Justice Jose C.
Vitug, 10 "procedural rules . . . [are] not cogent reasons to deny to the Court its taking cognizance of the case."
There is no political question involved here. The power and the authority of the PCGG to compromise

is not the issue. In fact, we have not prohibited or restrained it from doing so. But when the
compromise entered into palpably violated the Constitution and the laws, this Court is duty-bound to
strike it down as null and void. Clearly, by violating the Constitution and the laws, the PCGG gravely
abused its discretion. 11
In sum, we hold that the motions are procedurally flawed and that, at this late stage, intervention can no
longer be allowed. Moreover, movants are not indispensable parties to this suit which principally
assails the constitutionality and legality of PCGG's exercise of its discretion. In any event, the Court
has ruled on the merits of movants' claims. Hence, they can no longer complain, however remotely, of
deprivation of due process or of equal protection of the law.
WHEREFORE, the motions are hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Let the Decision of this Court,
dated December 9, 1998, be now entered.1wphi1.nt